File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0303, message 268


From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: the o/o gulf
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:51:10 -0800


All good points Rene. Is the subject the 'on' and 'off' gulf
war, or the 'ontic' and 'ontological' gulf?

I definately agree with you. You are wise indeed.

In The Hermenuetics of Factiticy, Heidegger discusses the
'dasein' of the chair. But he also goes to great length in
my opinion on the family dinner table. Now my understanding
is that a family table is a 'unique' table (unless you are
Goldie Hawn - who incidentally has multiple family tables)
with it's own history and destiny.

The idea that the table is a Ikea brand is distinction which
is primarily 'ontical' rather than 'ontological'.

I also believe that US has mixed motives for attacking
Bagdad with Tomahawk missiles. For instance Bush has stated
that they will minimize civilian causalties and fatalities;
however 42 missiles were launched, and some have hit
civilian targets intentionally. I the US was primarily
interested in conducting a 'just war', then it would not be
acting this way. Pre-emptive strikes targetting
communications and government facilities - rather than
airstrips, bunkers, and known military targets - appears to
be what is called a 'strategic' measure meant to disrupt any
and all governance.

When we venture to discuss the ontological structure of war,
then we need to assess the principles of a 'just war' versus
an 'unjust war'. Since up to 170 nations have demonstrated a
dislike and opposition against the US action in Iraq, it
could be demonstrated that the US has not acknowledged, at
this incipient stage, of proving and going on the record as
being responsible for the damages inflicted against property
and life. Rumsfeld and Bush have stated that the US will not
be in Iraq one more day after they complete their military
acts. In essence the US has demonstrated that it will not
pay nor compensate innocent Iraqis' for the damage they
inflict in Iraq. Also the are arguing that there is a fund
which the UN has access of about $40 billion which should be
used for reconstruction. This figure is not accurate since
it reflects funds collected over a 6 year period and much of
this has already been spent on humanitarian aid in the form
of food and medicines.

One ontological structure or 'meaning' here is that
collectively there is a lot of 'deception' or 'failure to
disclose' which has been exposed by experts around the
world. The US currently does not respect the inherent right
of innocent people to claim for suffering, loss and and
deprivation caused by itself; which repeats what I suggested
earlier, that the US is not responsible in any way for it's
impure motives and acts. For instance, the Twin Cities of
Japan which it destroyed was unjustified (there were no
military personnel in these cities), did not compensate a
single victim nor administer an humanitarian aid. It did
however send research personnel to investigate the medical
impacts to humans (it spent millions photographing and
documenting the personal injuries, but failed utterly to
feed, provide medicines to the victims).

as ever

john foster




     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005